‘For every problem there is a solution: neat, plausible and wrong’. H. L. Mencken

The critical response to ‘Why Us?’ in the past few months could scarcely be more polarised spanning the spectrum from the gratifyingly enthusiastic (‘refreshing and profound’) to the remorselessly hostile (‘a dreary rant’). This is only to be expected as its central theme – the validity or otherwise of the prevailing, exclusively materialist view of Man – is itself highly divisive. It thus seems appropriate to set this (b)log rolling by briefly clarifying my reasons for disputing the materialist view and defend myself against the implicit (and sometimes explicit) charge that in doing so I must be a closet creationist.

I have, for as long as I can remember, been a Darwin sceptic on no more sophisticated grounds of incredulity at the supposition that the same simple biological mechanism (natural selection acting on the random mutation of genes) could begin to account for the billionfold complexities and diversity of life. This is not to deny the ‘fact’ of evolution as there can be nothing more self evident than that the history of the universe is an evolutionary history – from the simplest elements of matter to the evermore complex. Nor is it to deny the ‘fact’ of natural selection, as again it is self evident that nature selects the strong and robust over the frail and vulnerable. Again, there is no doubt that Darwin’s proposed mechanism does indeed account (at least in part) for those subtle variations of form epitomised by the Galapagos finches.

Rather, the insuperable difficulty posed by Darwin’s theory is that it explains too much. There is no aspect of the living world too extraordinary, bizarre or wonderful that cannot be accounted for as having evolved to be as it is over billions of years. The inevitable weakness of such an all encompassing theory is that it portrays the phenomena of life as being vastly simpler than it really is and in purporting to explain everything ends up explaining very little in particular. This particularly applies to ourselves where the conventional evolutionary account of Man as set out in standard textbooks does not begin to acknowledge the staggering biological problems posed by the upright stance and acquiring that prodigiously sized brain with all its uniquely human attributes of speech, music, abstract thought and so on.

There is, in short, a striking discrepancy between the beguiling simplicities of the evolutionary mechanism and the profundity of the biological phenomena it purports to explain. This is no trivial matter for the supposition that biologists have proven the phenomena of life (and ourselves) to be the consequence of a known materialist evolutionary process is not just taught (virtually) uncritically in our schools and universities – but has obvious profound philosophical implications.

Still the presumption endures that Darwin solved the ‘mystery of life’ primarily on the grounds of there being no better theory, but also because its claims can never be put to the test of empirical verification as there is no way of telling one way or another whether the process of natural selection acting on those random mutation of genes really does account for all the extraordinary biological events stretching back billions of years – the Cambrian explosion, the Mesozoic and Mammalian radiations.

But the findings of genetics and neuroscience of the recent past have changed all that, buttressing the commonsensical scepticism about Darwin’s (evolutionary) ‘Reason for Everything’ with the extraordinary revelations and hard empirical data of the Genome Projects and the findings of sophisticated brain scanning studies. Memorising, perceiving and interpreting the world out there. Together they tear away at science’s façade of knowing to reveal the depth of our radical ignorance of the most elementary principles of genetic inheritance and brain function.

My purpose then in writing ‘Why Us?’ was to describe as clearly as possible this extraordinary (and quite unexpected) state of affairs, and examine its wider implications for the future of science and our understanding of ourselves. This has nothing to do (as alleged) with a hidden religious agenda, and everything to do with following the facts and observations of science where they will lead – rather than ignoring their significance or imprison them within the straightjacket of current theory. This will be the subject of a future posting.

5 Comments on “Why, ‘Why Us?’?”

#1indiagirl said at 10:26 am on May 22nd, 2009:

I thoroughly enjoyed your book. I had just attended a day of Darwin lectures at Glasgow University. It was interesting to note the differences in views of Geologists and Geneticists. I liked your book because it posed questions rather than stated answers. I feel that too much science today is agenda led and research scientists are prone to state the results they prefer before they do all the tests.

I find your columns in the Telegraph also very interesting. We do need to hear all sides of stories and science progress not just the stories politicians and others think we should hear.

So thank you for rekindling my flagging faith in science.

#2snowfiretiger said at 2:36 pm on May 25th, 2009:

Dear James Le Fanu,
I wish I had read this before writing that second response. Your interest in and love of truth has afforded you the distinction (alone, or almost alone, among scientists whose works I have read) of suspending your hidden or unconscious metaphysical bias, and thus allowing reality to have its say through you. You are not under a compulsion to interpret the findings of science in any particular way; indeed, somehow, you have freed yourself of the drive to reinforce your personal point of view–something which almost every one of us does, involuntarily. Certainly in my lifetime I don’t believe I have encountered such chaste and beautiful application of subjective consciousness to the realm of objective data. Nothing could be truer than what you say here your perspective on the critical response to your book. Sincerely, Robert Wood

#3kbrooks said at 12:42 pm on June 10th, 2009:

The reference Notes at the end of ‘Why Us?’ suggest a more sophisticated analysis than the philosophically and scientifically naive text, which is mired in dualism as if it were the only alternative to a (poorly-defined) materialism.

I have read so, so many books. But I have never read one so “wonderful.” It speaks to me in so many ways. I often peer out my window at work, 35th floor, and just stand in awe at what humans team-working created for our use. My wife came from one of the poorest parts of the Philippines at the age of 21, first time she had a bed to sleep on instead of a mat on the ground, and is now an accountant. The two children she brought into this world, now 23 and 24,one in the last year of Pharmacy School, the other finishing a political science degree with law school to follow, are absolutely going too far exceed all the dreams my wife and I had for them. Take that Darwin. Because of your book, I am finally opening my eyes to the wonder and blessings this remarkable brain is giving me. I am so sorry for holding back all its potential because of my pre-occupation with self. I now want to make it a goal to stand where the Cro-Magnon Man stood – and just pay my respects. I have seen the Sistine Chapel. But although currently that has been the ultimate experience of my life, spending a moment in that cave will surpass even that. And to think mankind in its infinite wisdom has found abortion to be so commonplace – Eugenics to its ultimate – the joy of life stolen from millions of the most innocent. To think that those precious lives will never have the chance to become President, Prime Minister or that one scientist who quite literally comes up with the idea that will save mankind from extinction – or simply the joy of being alive. I recommended your book to at least 7 people before I finished it. I am going to give it as a Christmas gift to many. I see no end to my recommendations. I would like to teach a class on this book. I would like you to create a children’s’ book that targets 5th and 6th graders with the same wondrous message about their remarkable brain; it should be mandatory reading in high school – to hell with “The Death of a Salesman.” It should be mandatory reading to newlyweds before they are permitted to marry. And those contemplating abortion. I could go on. Thank you, James, for your hard work in writing this awesome book. My life is changing right before my own “eyes” and my mind is pleased to hear it. I owe that to you.

Can I immediately suggest that it is a little dishonest to suggest that Gilbert Ryle settled the case against dualism! We can drop names all day, but until someone actually advances an argument we can’t have any dialogue. It would be nice to know what kbrooks objection to your book actually was!

In the meantime I have a question. In “What a piece of work is the human body” you write

“The human body in its prime is a masterpiece of elegant design where even its apparently insignificant features prove to be indispensable…These faults aside, it is very difficult to see how the body could be improved on – as indeed a group of experts concluded.”

Contrast this with a statement by John C. Avise, in apaper published by “Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA”

“many complex biological traits are gratuitously complicated, function poorly, and debilitate their bearers. Furthermore, such dysfunctional traits abound not only in the phenotypes but inside the genomes of eukaryotic species.”

“Nature” editor wrote a comment piece on Avise’s article entitled “What a Shoody Piece of Work is Man”.

So which is it? Is the human body beautifully designed and perfectly suited for it’s environment?
Or has it been “cobbled together” by a blind engineer?
And how is it the case that human scientists can give such radically different assessments of the Human body?